And so it begins: Eat less meat or we’ll make you.

Cant quite see Bojo cutting out his Steaks

Route 66 said:

Cant quite see Bojo cutting out his Steaks

Click to expand...

Yeah, well the rich can afford to pay the tax, just like they can afford the congestion charges etc.

Once again, the poor are unfairly targeted.

Here is the official UK government Climate Change Comittee report on agricultual land use

https://www.theccc.org.uk/2020/01/2...and-use-needed-to-deliver-net-zero-emissions/

https://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/land-use-policies-for-a-net-zero-uk/

The BBC news just now announced that an 80% reduction in livestock farming is required by 2030. to ensure the land is reassigned to meet the 2050 target of Net Zero Emissions..

Edit to add: The EU agriculture report just released does not share the UK views on climate change, and is not showing any movement towards a 2050 goal
https://ec.europa.eu/info/food-farm...cts-and-figures/markets/outlook/short-term_en

Spotted on a roadside poster in New Zealand....You can't feed the hungry with trees. Keep farming land for feeding folk.

Oh Well - It will be back to meat 6 days a week and Roadkill for the Sunday Roast

Sorry just remembered that there will be no cars so that may mean the roadkill is off menu.

Tipetoo said:

We have a similar attitude here in Australia,



I will not be reducing my consumption of meat inc. bacon, and dairy products as I support the producers of all of these food items.

Click to expand...

This is about availability and pricing. The meat and dairy won't be there to buy if our livestock is reduced by 80% and will be too expensive for many anyway.

Jim Lahey said:

What was that we were saying about choice? Looks like we’re edging one step closer to the removal of it.

People should cut the amount of beef, lamb and dairy produce they eat by a fifth to combat climate change, a report says. It says public bodies should lead the way by offering plant-based options with all meals. But it says if people don’t cut consumption willingly, taxes on meat and dairy might be needed. The report comes from the government’s official advisers, the Committee on Climate Change (CCC).

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-51210622

Click to expand...

Need to change the government then.

EllieM said:

Well, I'm probably going to be very unpopular here, but I agree that climate change needs to be tackled. If this means a shift in the way that agricultural land is used (more crops and less livestock) then we will have to pay more (or reduce) our consumption of animal-based products.


Countries like Australia won't be able to raise any lifestock if climate change means permanent severe drought and fires.

https://www.ewg.org/meateatersguide...at-matters/climate-and-environmental-impacts/

OK, not sure how accurate the above is but it does compare greenhouse gas emissions for different food types : lamb, beef and cheese are 1,2,3 on the list. Maybe meat eaters should substitute chicken and pork for beef and lanb?

Click to expand...

Yes. Climate change is more important.

However by messing with the meat eaters they are barking up the wrong tree. 2nd verse, same as the first.

By not tackling climate change we face more of what is happening in Australia, less land to live on, less fish in the sea, more drought. So no land, no water so meat is lower down the pecking order.

EllieM said:

Well, I'm probably going to be very unpopular here, but I agree that climate change needs to be tackled. If this means a shift in the way that agricultural land is used (more crops and less livestock) then we will have to pay more (or reduce) our consumption of animal-based products.


Countries like Australia won't be able to raise any lifestock if climate change means permanent severe drought and fires.

https://www.ewg.org/meateatersguide...at-matters/climate-and-environmental-impacts/

OK, not sure how accurate the above is but it does compare greenhouse gas emissions for different food types : lamb, beef and cheese are 1,2,3 on the list. Maybe meat eaters should substitute chicken and pork for beef and lanb?

Click to expand...

For us diet controlled type 2 diabetics this is not good. And unless the NHS accepts that our diet is a medical necessity, we are stuffed when it comes to controlling our diabetes.

Chicken and pork is still meat and still comes under the new agricultural policy.

I can't seem to be able to get people, even on here, to understand how awful this is for diabetics who use diet as a big part of our control.

It's the equivalent of type I diabetics being told their insulin will be rationed.

We type 2s may die more slowly with an uncontrolled diet, but die we will, after suffering horrendous complications unnecessarily.

EllieM said:

Well, I'm probably going to be very unpopular here, but I agree that climate change needs to be tackled. If this means a shift in the way that agricultural land is used (more crops and less livestock) then we will have to pay more (or reduce) our consumption of animal-based products.


Countries like Australia won't be able to raise any lifestock if climate change means permanent severe drought and fires.

https://www.ewg.org/meateatersguide...at-matters/climate-and-environmental-impacts/

OK, not sure how accurate the above is but it does compare greenhouse gas emissions for different food types : lamb, beef and cheese are 1,2,3 on the list. Maybe meat eaters should substitute chicken and pork for beef and lanb?

Click to expand...

You are assuming that climate change is even a “thing” and that changing what we eat will have any effect on it. If the models are wrong and it’s solar activity rather than man made then what? How many billions will have been wasted “solving” a non existent problem...

EllieM said:

climate change needs to be tackled.

Click to expand...

I agree.
However, the cattle that graze here in my province eat the grass where nothing else grows. Not beans, vegetables or even trees.
I fail to see how trucking vegetables from other regions is better for the environment.
We have to eat. Soy beans and avocados with all the fertilizer and water they use for growing and fuel for transportation are not better in preventing climate change. The science is flawed.

bulkbiker said:

You are assuming that climate change is even a “thing” and that changing what we eat will have any effect on it. If the models are wrong and it’s solar activity rather than man made then what? How many billions will have been wasted “solving” a non existent problem...

Click to expand...

Really? Whilst there may be some truth in what you say, what if you are wrong and man is a significant factor. Can we afford to take the chance? That said let’s focus on the real issues (Industry, overpopulation to name but two) not the fashionable ones (veganism)

Jim Lahey said:

What was that we were saying about choice? Looks like we’re edging one step closer to the removal of it.

People should cut the amount of beef, lamb and dairy produce they eat by a fifth to combat climate change, a report says. It says public bodies should lead the way by offering plant-based options with all meals. But it says if people don’t cut consumption willingly, taxes on meat and dairy might be needed. The report comes from the government’s official advisers, the Committee on Climate Change (CCC).

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-51210622

Click to expand...

I've been working with nutritionists in Malawi, one said at a recent meeting "we've tried 50 years of vegetarianism and it hasn't worked for us", i hate (with a passion) the pressure to make climate change an individual responsibility when it's a political responsibility. telling me to shoulder the burden, let alone people who are malnourished, that it's "up to me" is disingenuous. this is a failure of leadership not a "personal choice".

EllieM said:

Well, I'm probably going to be very unpopular here, but I agree that climate change needs to be tackled. If this means a shift in the way that agricultural land is used (more crops and less livestock) then we will have to pay more (or reduce) our consumption of animal-based products.


Countries like Australia won't be able to raise any lifestock if climate change means permanent severe drought and fires.

https://www.ewg.org/meateatersguide...at-matters/climate-and-environmental-impacts/

OK, not sure how accurate the above is but it does compare greenhouse gas emissions for different food types : lamb, beef and cheese are 1,2,3 on the list. Maybe meat eaters should substitute chicken and pork for beef and lanb?

Click to expand...

Last month there were reports of a marsh in Ethiopia region that suddenly burped more methane than all the cows in the world. It does this from time to time, and is not the only source of methane emissions that are naturally generated such as volcanos and flooded regions. The Environmentalists ignore these natural sources since they are not Man Made, but they dwarf the cows output. For 'man made' consider the output from the sewage farms and landfill for a start since these too are ignored in the calculations. Anyone living downwind of a marsh or midden will tell you it varies with the seasons and the weather, so not predictable either. Any patch of vegetation will generate methane if it suddenly gets wet and rots. One of the largest contributors to methane emission that is conveniently forgotten is the humble rice paddy field, amd these are significant generators that are not included in the GHG statistics. The WHO acknowledges that their analysis in this area was poorly executed, and two directors of WHO were removed from office last year for gross misrepresentation. Their department was responsible for working out the environmental cost of various man made practices. When calculating the cost of livestock. they included all transport costs, but when looking at vegetable and fruit and grain, they left the shipping effects out, so did not compare like for like at all. So all meat had a virtual journey to slaughterhouses across europe and back via Belgium for cleaning and packaging, but tomatoes and avacadoes all were grown local to the retail outlet with no transport overhead. Forget flying bunches of flowers around the world from Amsterdam and Ghana. or tomatoes from Israel. No carbon footprint there then.
So yes the statistics that support the environmental arguments are often built on sand.

As @lucylocket61 said, those of us using certain diets to control our condition will suffer a major challenge in the coming years as our choices are eroded and blocked. For us there is at least the backstop of using insulin to compensate. I wonder what this thread would read like if there were no vegan friendly sources of insulin and we were being threatened with losing porcine insulin forever.